Moyer signs

The Phillies just gave a 46 year-old pitcher a two year deal. The fun part: it’s way less likely that they’ll be burned on this than it will be for the Yankees to be burned by the five-year deal they just gave a 32 year-old.

Adam: yes, it’s a serious post. Why do you think it isn’t? My view is that Moyer will come closer to justifying a two year deal than Burnett will to justifying a five year deal. Your mileage may vary, but if so, tell us why.

Jason: point taken, so maybe “burned” is the wrong word in the Yankees’ case. On an objective level, however, I think Moyer earns his keep better than Burnett does.

I think a 32 year old with elite stuff and one serious arm injury 5 years ago has a much better chance at being successful over a 5 year period than a 46 year old that throws 52 MPH does over 2 years. Call me crazy.

I’ll dispense with the collective moaning in the Bay Area over Furcal going to the Braves to actually address the subject of Craig’s post.

Yes, the post is pure speculation based on subjective belief. So what?

At some level, we all agree that unless you are a Yankees fan, you hate them because they are rich and successful. They absolutely can afford to have Burnett pitch an average of 16 starts a year and 100 innings at a 4.40 ERA over the next 5 years. That’s way more than they got from Carl Pavano.

What was their alternative?

1) Go with Hughes, Kennedy & Igawa. Tried that.
2) Sign Derek Lowe. When last seen in the American League East, he was effective, not dominating, and is going to be 36 this year while wanting 3-4 years on a deal.
3) Trade or sign a second tier free-agent starter. If they missed bats like Burnett they wouldn’t be second-tier.

The Yankees can afford the risk. Burnett’s stuff is electric. The risk is how many games he’ll start. That’s why they are keeping Hughes and Kennedy. They are plan B.

To use a Bay area example, look at how the A’s dealt with Rich Harden. They waited till he was healthy, relatively, and traded him to a “big” club. The A’s could not afford to have $ 9M unproductive dollars on the payroll. The Cubs could. When Harden pitched for the Cubs, he was brilliant. The gamble worked for them. Last year.

The Yankees will look at Burnett just like the Cubs did at Harden. It’s a risk, but the upside is tremendous, and they can afford the downside.

Burnett’s stuff is electric, by all accounts, but his performance has never lived up to it. His best single season ERA+ was 122 (in 2002), good but hardly ace material, and his career ERA+ is 111 (ditto). At age 32, that’s not likely to improve over the next 5 seasons, so don’t get your hopes up about that tremendous upside. He’s a #2 or 3 who makes you think he should be a #1 at times (and of course the Yankees can afford to pay him like a borderline #1).